FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Patrick Semmens
January 21, 2008
703-248-9115
WASHINGTON, DC - On Tuesday, January 22 - the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision - Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul will hold a press conference with pro-life activist Norma Leah McCorvey. McCorvey, who runs Crossing over Ministry, is "Jane Roe" of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
What/Who: Announcement by Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") and Congressman Ron Paul
When: 10:30 AM ET, Tuesday, January 22, 2008
(The 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision)
Where: Phoenix Park Hotel (Capitol Hill North), Georgian Room (2nd Floor)
520 North Capitol Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
Hotel phone: (202) 638-6900
[Note: The Phoenix Park Hotel is two blocks from Hyatt-Regency Hotel where the March for Life Convention is being held]
Note: Open to the press. Light Breakfast will be served.
###
Regulating morality is never going to work.
Education is key.Living with our loses is key.
You don't see Lou Pinella cutting the team after a loss.It seems to me telling a woman she has to have a baby,when she doesn't want to is a form of coercion.When you see how much some couple's spend adopting kids out of the country you would think they could spend that money here at home to help influence a potential mother considering an abortion.In fact we could make that a priority or Law over out of country adoptions.
I do see a potential for abuse with some women factoring out babies for money,but we could curb that by setting a limit on how many potentially they could do ,by getting them to sign an agreement to tie the tubes on the second or third one.Kind of a three strkes your out deal.I think Totaltarian law is not the answer Education and responsibility is.
Come on, paying women simply to have their babies is absurd. I’d have to put this in the same economic category as paying an extra bounty to kids simply to participate in their own learning, or letting criminals out of jail early for their “good behavior” (acting normally) while incarcerated. It turns the incentives on their heads.
But, of course, it is the moral case which makes this idea abominable – setting a price on the baby’s head. Reducing the value of life to a financial windfall for the “mother” – paying the ransom, or else accepting the death of the infant. The enforceability alone is intractable precisely because these criminals are the same ones with the sympathetic political power-base to keep us “out of their womb”, etc., ad absurdum.
Thus, how exactly would “we” ensure the baby is actually born (and safely cared for) once the ransom has been paid by us? And what do “we”, who agreed to pay the ransom, do when the “mother” then holds the hatchet (or suction hose) at the infant’s throat, while demanding from us an ever-increasing amount of payment into perpetuity (or else, ‘the kid will die!’)??
And whom exactly do you mean by “we”? I noticed you excused yourself from paying while still proposing the idea. I, too, abhor government coercion EXCEPT in (Constitutional) cases of safety and saving lives – such as protecting the unborn, the absolute epitome of innocence, from their murderous “mothers”.
I’m all for “choice” – it just doesn’t include the choice for murder. What’s wrong with expecting people to take responsibility for their lives, AND for the lives they create? What’s so difficult about “choosing” adoption over murder?
Earth to Publicbulldog: Just about ALL government laws and regulations are rooted in “morality”. However distasteful, or wrong, or misguided, or wonderful, all laws and regulations are motivated by someone’s (or groups of someones) ideas of proper, or moral, actions being made by the people over which they govern.
I agree, the least coercion, the better – except when it comes to a few things like abortion, where one should feel morally obligated for someone to step in – in defense of the most defenseless victim.
The best way to deal with people who are “too stupid” is to let them live and learn by the positive or negative consequences resulting from their own personal decisions. And, if individuals feel compelled to offer their private charity, and if that assistance is accepted, then great! – the more charity, the merrier.
How about this idea?: Individuals, who care about the deaths of millions of babies, pool their resources, via private organizations, and contract with prospective “mothers” who are engaging in, or contemplating elective abortion. They would then contract with them privately, with those who accept, to receive assistance (including payments), the mother would be enticed to have her baby if pregnant, perhaps to give it up for adoption, and in some cases she agrees to undergo an elective hysterectomy.
I have no problem with this solution. Would you?
-Jefferson Paine
I am conservative in that I think sex should matter.. with someone you love.However legislating morality has to proven to be a futile game of squeezing the blob.
We try and squeeze the blob here,and it just goes there.Ultimately our moral positives are merely squeezing the blob from here to there.
Again we seem to be hung up on our losses and resorting to a draconian solution that will lead to another game of squeezing the blob.We need to put our education systems,and non profit systems in place and change the culture of abortion as best we can.will we win all our battles..No..But we will have done all we could to prevent what would be a tragic loss of a life.I say give them education,and non profit help and the financial access to to that help,and live with our losses rather than watching women go to underground clinics, mexico, Canada,or India to avoid our laws.Most moral types seem to be able to live with squeezing the blob I can't.
Of course, the rest of that document is pretty good too, but that the point here is that government's purpose is to "secure these rights," first among them: Life. Dr. Paul has it right. He's your candidate, Bulldog. You'd do well to hear what he has to say about the issue. Check out the audio of this press conference at my blog.
And by the way, speaking as a woman, it isn't about telling a woman what she can do with her body. It's about prohibiting the taking of another person's life. She makes the decision of what to do with her body when she has sex. But of course, it takes two to tango, as they say. It would help if men would be more responsible and show true love by waiting until marriage, and move the courtship along towards marriage, rather than into the sack. In other words, be real men like my husband is.